http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Wasnt sure where to post this but seeing as there is a serious undertone to the fun I thought it would sooner or later digress into some semblance of serious conversation.

The truth is that most of "logical" proof of the existence of God looks like that. The problem is that God is supposed to be believed, not proven. There is no faith if there is full logical proof (although hints and circumstancial proof do help in faith), and if faith is required of the members of the religion, then there can be no full scientific proof for them.

What is the difference between knowing something and believing something?

There is no faith if there is full logical proof So faith is something that should be doubted?

I will not get involved in any debate as to whether God exists or does not exist:

1) I will never be able to prove to a non-believer that God exists.

2) The non-believer will never be able to prove to me that God does not exists.

EOD

I enjoyed the link and found it fun. Only went through the first 100. Will look further through it another time.

What is the difference between knowing something and believing something?What's the difference between seeing something coming and believing he will come yet?

@Nakia

Thus. you are agnostic. Am I right?

Hmm, it is rare, to not say that it has never happened before that me and Chev agrees on something relating to religion. What he said in his first post was more or less what I was about to say in my first as well but refrained because I thought it might be a tad too inflammatory.

Nakia, I would say the burden of proof lies with those who claim that something exist. You can never prove the non-existance of something. If I say that there is an invisible purple chainsmoking hippo in my apartment is it up to you prove that it isnt there or is it up to me to prove that it is there?

In my oppinion, those proofs are all BS!

What I think is that no one can prove that god does exist and no one can prove that god does not exist!

EDIT: I'm starting to believe more and more in the Plainscape theory that says:

"The more people believe in something, the more probable it is that that someting exists."

There is no faith if there is full logical proof So faith is something that should be doubted? IMO:
Believe is something you trust to be true without having seen the proof. It's should not be doubted.
Trust and Believe are almost identical when it comes to religion. You know it. It's a fact to you at the time you believe it.

If you start to doubt, you don't believe or trust the things that you used to know.

Believe is not something that's continuous. Everybody has his doubts.

Here's a joke about 'believing':

During one of a professer's routine classes, he decided to raise a controversial subject:

He stood in front of his class and said: "Can anyone hear God? Can anyone see God? Can anyone smell God?" After a long pause, the professor concluded: "Because none of you can hear, see, or smell God, I conclude that there is no God."

Not to be outdone, one particularly potent student stood up. "May I address the class directly?" he asked.

"Yes, you may," the professor replied.

The student went to the front of the class and began: "Can anyone hear the professor's brain? Can anyone see the professor's brain? Can anyone smell the professor's brain?" After a particularly uneasy and long pause, the student finished: "Because none of you can hear, see, or smell the professor's brain, I conclude that the professor has no brain."

Now some of you will say that if you'd open the professor's skull, you could see his brain. And I believe that if I wait long enough God will reveal his mysteries.

@Kelvon Shadowmane: er, hmn, ah.

1) I don't think of myself as agnostic.

2) Religion has played a big part in my life.

3) I am probably agnostic.

@Joacqin: Believe me, if you claimed to see such a creature I would not try to prove to you that it didn't exist.

Argument 348:
Whoever cooked up that list went from subliminal irony to overt sarcasm in the first 5 (I think) reasons, and then felt compelled to point to every bit of ironic remark he makes. Meh.

---
Somebody went to really great lengths to, through irony, prove that God does not exist. If he doesn't exist, he is not an important subject. Do we actually discuss, e.g. ioytujokemestilnigidatriwones? Do we consider them an important subject? Do we feel the need to prove their non-existence? What if I told you those ioytujokemestilnigidatriwones tell people to kill each other. Would you listen? Or would you accuse me of being crazy?
What I mean is, there is no point:
a) disproving the existence of something which does not exist.
b) being bothered by something that does not exist.
Ad.:
a) if something doesn't exist, every person should be able to see that. Those that would claim it exist would be labelled as mental cases.
b) if something doesn't exist, it is unimportant.
Therefore:
a) we would have to assume a great majority in this world consists entirely of mental cases. One of the symptoms of being insane yourself is accusing everyone (or almost everyone, except for the people that think alike) else of being insane. The author of the list is therefore insane.
b) if someone argues, and spends time arguing, about something that does not exist (ergo: is unimportant), the person has mental problems. The author of the list is therefore insane.
Ergo:
1. The person who cooked up that list is a mental case.
2. He doesn't believe in God.
3. Insane people do not believe in God.
4. There are sane people who believe in God
5. It is insane to not believe in God.
6. Insane people make wrong assumptions.
7. It is therefore wrong to assume God does not exist.
8. Therefore, God exists.
---
Sounds absurd? It is supposed to. It is, however, quite a logical thinking path. I'm just using their own arguments.
---

And no, there's no point arguing about it. Believing is that = believing. Does believing exclude knowing/proving? I believe yes, it does. St. Ignatius (IIRC) is credited of saying:
"If God appeared in all His glory for all people to witness, He would take away their free will that instant. Someone who would witness such pure love would never again accept anything less. Thus taking of free will."
Furthermore, if you knew God exists, what would be the point of believing? Do you believe in the fact that water scalds past certain level (past 37 degrees Centigrade is a good point of reference)? Or do you know it and accept it as a fact -- take it for granted? Would you willingly submit yourself to being scalded by hot water?
Now, let's assume you know, as it has been proven, that God exists. You would know which faith is correct, you would know what observances to put into being. Else, you would be submitted to eternal punishment in hell. Would you willingly submit yourself to eternal punishment?
I see it as another way to lose free will...

While I am aware that it is impossible to prove that God exists, and have yet to see an arguement that God doesn't exist that does not fall apart at the assumptions (thus the arguer makes an ass out of himself), I do believe that God lives. I have made changes in my life to reflect this faith (giving up alcohol, drugs, Coffee and pornography). I believe that it is important to choose to do that which is right because it shows our gratitude to God for that which he has done for us.

Knowing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=knowing)


# To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
# To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
believing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=believing)

# To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
# To credit with veracity: I believe you. Knowing and believing are the same because there is no absolute fundamental basis on which you can place what you know.
I know, that the earth is round, it might be because my eyes are decieving me.
I, therefor have to believe that my eyes are not decieving me.

Knowing is build on faith, when one knows that God exists, he has no free will.

[ January 26, 2005, 09:57: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

toughluck, what the hell are you talking about?

A very short answer to what I think is the geist of your post, the non-existance of something non-existant is of great important if there are millions of people who believe in this non-existant entity and that this entity has told them all manner of things on how people are supposed ot live their life and such.

One thing I don't agree with Morogoth on, and I apologize if this is going off topic, but it was claimed that when someone knows that God exists, they lose theri free will.

I believe that God exists, He has given us commandments, but has also given us free will and the responsibility to choose to obey His commandments and follow His counsels on how to live.

If god is really out there, may he please fix the error called humans, for screwing up the planet.

God does not exist, and I can prove just be reading the bible (a very good book, can stand up against most fantasy books):

God is almighty (he did create the world by his own voice, didn't he?)
God is good (else there would be little point in believing in a supra-natural being)
Would a good and almighty god cause this much suffering in the world?

Eventhough, I completely understand that some people have need to believe in some bigger scheme to give a form of meaning (or order as you like) to their lives. What I however can't understand is why some schools (in the US amongst others) teach creationism (i.e. that god created the world) as the one and only truth, while a proven theory, the evolution theory (a distilled form of Darwinism) isn't even mentioned, or at best is mentioned as a silly thought of atheist to explain how the world started...
And then when you try to argue with someone on the evolution theory, you get a moronic response: 'do you REALLY believe man can worth from monkeys?', which can only be explained by 2 reasons:
1/ the school system is flawed, and the evolution theory was not properly explained
2/ the person was a moron
However since I believe that almost every person has his potential to understand his own start (we went through a whole line of evolution :p ) I fear that the reason of the persons ignorance lies in a flawed educational system...


(BTW: the evolution theory doesn't state man evolved from monkeys, it states we had a common ancestor... It's just like you and your nephew... you didn't evolve from eachother, nor do you look alike, but you share a common ancestor (2 grandparents in this case)... Most people understand evolution theory a bit better after being told that example and also most stupid comments are pointed out as BS)

Now, believing in God is irrational. Ie. If I believe in God, I do it because it is my choice, and not because I can prove that God exists.

However, not believing in God is also irrational. An atheist must say: "I believe there is no God." This is also irrational, because as you cannot prove God's existence, you also cannot prove that God does not exist.

@Lord Sven -- God is good, hence he had given us free will. He had given free will to every sentient being, including angels, and some of them thought they, God's creation, could be greater than God himself. Satan is the source of evil, and can influence people, by promises and flattery, to commit evil. You can find a theological explanation to that rather easily.
QED.

The problem is that God is supposed to be believed, not proven. There is no faith if there is full logical proof (although hints and circumstancial proof do help in faith), and if faith is required of the members of the religion, then there can be no full scientific proof for them. Amen chev.

God is almighty (he did create the world by his own voice, didn't he?)
God is good (else there would be little point in believing in a supra-natural being)
Would a good and almighty god cause this much suffering in the world? God is not the cause of suffering is humans, we do it upon ourselves. Without evil humans cannot know good, if we were created perfect we would not know what good is and what evil is. Fence we were created flawed and with a will to do as we wish, he also gave us a book to guide us, so we can choose to do good or evil. As heartless as it sounds, we must suffer in order to know good.
Some things we cannot understand, and believing that we understand everything is arrogant. Like a gigantic painting 100km high and 100km wide, if we were to stand close to it we would only see chaos. But if we were to stand back and see the big picture, than the chaos wouold make sense. I believe that humans can never see the whole picture, but our faith allows us a glimse of the big picture

Now, believing in God is irrational. Ie. If I believe in God, I do it because it is my choice, and not because I can prove that God exists.

However, not believing in God is also irrational. An atheist must say: "I believe there is no God." This is also irrational, because as you cannot prove God's existence, you also cannot prove that God does not exist. Love like emotion is irrational, humans are very much irration beings hence we believe in irrational things. But that dissproves neither nor does it make them wrong.

This--the original post--reminds me of something a college friend of mine wrote:

Three beers in One? One beer in Three? Three in One? One in Three?......What the hell! I never did understand metaphysics!

How can it be irrational to not believe that a being no one has seen created everything by itself, laid down a bunch of arbitrary rules (only ten of which officially is said to come straight from god) for one desert people. A being who performs all manners of miracles when it feels like it, quite a lot of them consists of killing and devastating people who do not worship this god. The madness goes on and on with virgin births and resurrections and all manner of silliness. And this is just one among thousand religions. How can it be irrational to reject them all?

Even if one happened to be true ,which is as likely as I learning to fly by flapping my nostrils, how do you pick? I mean, the odds are stacked heavily against you that you will make the wrong choice.

In this case the burden of proof is based on those who think God exists. To justify something based on something else without that something else actually being proven to someone else to exist is absurd.

I'm pretty much agnostic because of what joacqin said in the second above paragraph. So many choices, too much risk.

And just to throw out another curveball... How can God be a just god? In the old testament He ordered the genocide of certain peoples because they did not believe in Him. Did God send prophets to those people before? Did He give them a chance to convert to Him? Did he give them any proof? Any message? Now that's just how unjust God is in this life. What about the afterlife? If I lived in a small Chinese village about 500BC and had never heard of God how could it be just for me to burn in Hell for eternity for not believing in God?

However, not believing in God is also irrational. An atheist must say: "I believe there is no God." This is also irrational, because as you cannot prove God's existence, you also cannot prove that God does not exist. Nope, an atheist says: 'I believe only in myself on things that can be tangible/explainable' And that can be easily proven :p

Satan is the source of evil, and can influence people, by promises and flattery, to commit evil. You can find a theological explanation to that rather easily. If god is almighty, why doesn't he get rid of satan? there can be only 1 almighty being, that is, by definition almighty :p

Love like emotion is irrational, humans are very much irration beings hence we believe in irrational things. But that dissproves neither nor does it make them wrong. Love is not irrational... It's simply a mental adaptation to a physical need...


Besides, the evolution of men:

In the beginning man believed in many gods, when they became more evolved they only believed in one god anymore... and now, the most evolved people believe in no god anymore ;)

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) If reason exists then Balle exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, Balle exists.

joacquin -- I can't see you. Therefore, I conclude that you do not exist. Since I do not believe you exist, you should stop existing.

Did you stop existing? No, I don't think so.

Does not believing in something makes it any less real? I could say: "I do not believe this wall is there," go right up to it and get a bump on my head. And even then I could say I still don't believe that wall is there. Does that make it any less real? Does that stop it from existing? No.

God doesn't need anyone to believe in Him. This will not change anything.

@LordSven
If god is almighty, why doesn't he get rid of satan? there can be only 1 almighty being, that is, by definition almightyGod is almighty. Satan is not almighty, and is already beaten, and knows that. However, he can act in time, and will try and seduce people.
Since God is Love, he will not 'get rid' of Satan. God gave him free will, and has allowed him to choose for himself. Because of that love, Satan will continue to exist -- God will not contradict Himself in any way.

If you do not believe that I exist it is up to me to prove that I do exist, but seeing that you read what I supposedly write and you could see my picture the SP gallery. It is not overly strong evidence but it is a lot stronger than anything you have for any kind of divine being.

As for the wall the fact that you got a bump should tell you that there is something there, the empirical evidence suggest that it exists, you can chose to disregard that but it is of no consequence.

When it comes to god there is no such evidence, it is as rational to believe in Allah or the Christian god as it is to believe in tree spirits, santa claus or the little green stone eater. Just because some people claim something exists doesnt make it to exists, just as when you pointed out that claiming something to not exist doesnt make it stop being.

You cannot argue in favour of religion from a rational or logical stand point, you always have to make at first one un-falsifiable assumption and then build on that one and this removes any foundation in rationaly or logic for the entire argument. Argue out of faith or gutfeeling or whatever but do not take a false rational or logical stance. Your fellow Polish Roman-Catholic chevalier said just this in his first post in this thread.

If God is almighty but allows his creation free will and that is why Satan is still around, why did God then punish Satan, wasnt that to remove his free will? Is it not to remove mans free will if God allows Satan to influence and fiddle with our minds?

If God is almighty but allows his creation free will and that is why Satan is still around, why did God then punish Satan, wasnt that to remove his free will?He did had a free will, but just as the Humans, he got punished for doing wrong, and his choise became his fall.

Is it not to remove mans free will if God allows Satan to influence and fiddle with our minds?That depends. Some churches believe that Satan controls our minds and makes us evil, some believe that he just has an influence, some even believe that he does NOT have any influence, but is just the deliverer of pain when you get what you deserve when you die.

So, if a bunch of churches within the same general faith has a ton of different opinions on something as important as free will and the evil one how do you know which one is correct? The most basic tenet of every religion is that it is *true*, how do you pick between all these different interpretation even within each religion? Only one can be *true*, how do you know the one you have is the right one?

One never knows which one is true, one THINK he knows which one is true. There is a reason I don't consider myself a member of any curch, there's a reason I don't even consider myself a member of the normal Christian curch, and that reason is that being in a small folder limits your own way of thinking.

@toughluck: I do not believe you exist Did you stop existing? No, I don't think so.Blatantly self- contradictory.

God is not the cause of suffering is humans, we do it upon ourselves.Um, yeahhhh. That's right. The asian tsunami was our fault.

Is it not a little sadistic for a almighty God to let people do evil things and then punish them for it? To elaborate on that, I'd like to point out that the way our brains are wired (in your opinion, that is because God made them that way) mean that we often want to do things classed as sins! If a omnipotent-benovelent God existed, He would not make us want to sin. It's as silly as the concept that God lets suffering take place to make us learn from the experience, when He could have made that unnessecary.

I don't really think anyone here would be qualified to say what God (or any other gods) would do or not do. If you believe in God you will read that due to our nature and existance there are many concepts that we can never understand or even accept.

God is almighty. Satan is not almighty, and is already beaten, and knows that. However, he can act in time, and will try and seduce people.
Since God is Love, he will not 'get rid' of Satan. God gave him free will, and has allowed him to choose for himself. Because of that love, Satan will continue to exist -- God will not contradict Himself in any way. So, God does exactly nothing on this side of the world. All he does is sort out the bad from the good AFTER they're dead. Why's he almighty then, we dont feel any of his might, if we did, he'd be influencing our free will.


The most important reason i think God doesnt exist, though, is the Old testament. As mentioned before, a lot of his miracles involved killing entire nations that did not belive in them. Mercilesly wipe them off the earth. Their women were given to the soldiers.
This is in total opposition to what good, as we define it, is.
It is from a source of christianity though, nothing that could be said to be the work of satan or a lunatic.

All in all, i belive Christianity isnt even good for people. While a grand majority of what it teaches is fine and well, people just arent made for being all goody. If anything, they have to come to the conclusion they like to be nice to other people by themselves.

My belief is that Jesus was sent not only to forgive our sins but to save us from The Father. As Gothmog says:

"The most important reason i think God doesnt exist, though, is the Old testament. As mentioned before, a lot of his miracles involved killing entire nations that did not belive in them. Mercilesly wipe them off the earth. Their women were given to the soldiers.
This is in total opposition to what good, as we define it, is."

if god is almighty, he can create a rock that god can't move. If god can't move it he is not almighty.

If God exists, he is logical. If he is logical he cannot make something that does not exist.

I know God exists because of mathematics.

0 X 0 = 0. 0 + 0 = 0. If nothing existed there would be no universe. Something had to exist for the universe to come into being.

Some philospher said that it is the nature of the Creator to create.

Do you think the laws of the universe are appliable before the creation of the universe?

No, I do not. Only X existed. Most people call X God. The unknown force behind what now is. There had to be something to create what we now have. If this sounds confusing it is. We are finite beings and can believe in the infinite but not comprehend it. This is where religion comes into play. This is also where I become agnostic.

One thing -- Big Bang. If it needed matter to happen, where did the matter come from. If it is possible for the matter to form out of nothing, to become equal amounts of matter and anti matter, it should happen all the time -- infinite times over infinitesimal amounts of time. Heck, I should have infinite Big Bangs right next to me in the room I'm sitting in.
Otherwise, what made that moment of time, 20 billion years ago, so unique that the only Big Bang known to man happened then?

And er... what/who created God? Where did he come from?

Basically the same argument can be applied to both they just "existed". Your 20 Billion year time scale is only relevant because now 20 Billion years have passed since an event. Alternatively it might have happened 10 Billion years ago which would mean we wouldn't be here.
At some point things got to the point of creating a "big bang", if they hadn't happened then, in an infinite time scale they would have happened later, maybe yesterday. Presumably you only get a single big bang because after that there isn't enough matter compressed into a single location!

There is/was one theory that at some point the universe will start contracting again and all mass will go back into a single point and await the next "big bang". I'm not sure if this was disproved by some observations which showed the galaxy's seem to be accelerating away from each other.

If it is possible for the matter to form out of nothing, to become equal amounts of matter and anti matter, it should happen all the time -- infinite times over infinitesimal amounts of time. Heck, I should have infinite Big Bangs right next to me in the room I'm sitting in. Why do you think that? 20 billion years over an infinite amount of time is nothing... (well exactly time wouldn't exist in case of the big bang status). what if the big bang only happens once in 21 billion years?

And er... what/who created God? Where did he come from? Good question! But only for the ones who want to have an explanation for everything. I believe in God. I don't have any proof, so I believe in God. I believe that God always existed, it's part of His divine being. Something I can not understand, but believe.
Much like Nakia said, but I did not become agnostic. ;)

Now if any of you 'Monkey Advanced Special Projects' with the urge to understand everything could tell me how this Big Bang came into the picture without any kind of material whatsoever, I might get interested in becoming an ape myself.

Point here is:
I rather believe in something/someone I cannot understand, than trying to understand everything without having the prove of the very beginning of all we can see here.

2nd post ever... I'm loving the AoDA! :D

The problem of God & creation is one particularly dear to my heart, being a Physicist by trade & philosopher as a hobby... I've inhabited a few stand points over my (short) life, from hardcore Richard Dawkins-esque Neo-Darwinism to a personal definition of God as necessary... & places in between.

The problem when you start using science as a big stick with which to beat religion is that science only ever concerns itself with making provisional statements, the validity of which is dependent upon further experiment. Karl Popper defined the role of science quite well in "Conjectures & Refutations", which can be easily found on the web. It's not an absolute truth, although people can be as dogmatically assured of it as any "true believer". I know, I've been there!

As for proving the existence of God by mathematics...

I know God exists because of mathematics.

0 X 0 = 0. 0 + 0 = 0. If nothing existed there would be no universe. Something had to exist for the universe to come into being.Consider the equations 0 X 1 = 0, and 0 X 0 = 0. Both are equally valid. Using standard algebra, divide both sides by zero:

1 = 0/0; 0 = 0/0. Therefore, 1=0.

So, it appears we *do* have something equalling nothing.

The problem is that mathematics is a set of rules & notations for pushing around numbers; pull the lever too far and it *will* break. Messing around too much with zeroes is quite a good way of doing this (not as good as playing with infinities, but that doesn't count as they're not part of the number line).

Ignoring the dodgy algebra, this is the sort of argument that sees God as a "necessary being", which Aristotle called the "Prime Mover". This is probably the definition of God I can most easily accept: no prescribed form, only that which acts as jump leads to the Universe.

The other baggage - infinite power and benevolence, for example - causes all sorts of problems when one tries to fit God with real life!

For various philosophers takes on God, here are a few names to Google: Descartes, Hume, Reid, Aristotle and, of course, Nietzsche (look for the passage from "The Gay Science" colloquially known as "the madman in the marketplace"... it's a personal fave!)

Right... I *really* need to sleep now; there's the best part of a vampire den that needs to be cleared! :D

[ February 05, 2005, 11:58: Message edited by: The Magpie ]

OK Magpie, so I'm being over simplistic. But if I wish to create a picture I need materials with which to do it. I still say 'nothing creates nothing'. Something had to exist and what it is called I really don't care but the common term is 'God'.

AS to my being an agnostic I have been doing some research and it seems I'm not an agnostic. I just don't believe there are any clear answers, only questions.

We can have fun discussing/debating this question but I do not believe we will come up with any answers. And I am having fun and learning a lot.

Well, Nakia, I view myself as an atheist but that doesnt mean that I am presumptous enough to think that I have the answers. My presumption only goes as far as rejecting those who are arrogant enough to claim that they know the answers.

One thing I would like people to do is to make a clear distinction between biblical/torah/koran/any other mythical god and the "there might have been something to start it all" god. There is a world of difference between those two view points. People seem to ignore the immense leap between a possible entity sparking the creation of the universe into an entity dabbling into what creatures on one tiny planet can eat for dinner and which sexual partners they can choose.

However, if there must be something to start it all, doesnt that same logic leads to there needing to be something to start the thing that started it and so on and so on?

Nooooooooooooo! Magpie just did a division by zero! Now the world shall end!

Yeah... Sorry about that, Warrior! I think if my computer had realised what was going on, there'd have been problems! (The maths thing was a wee bit pedantic, I'll admit).

Nakia & joacqin have pretty much nailed it. The logic of "nothing creates nothing" and "what created the thing that created everything else" have been doing battle since the year dot.

Which side you fall down on is largely a matter of preference: the logic of both can be considered suspect, depending on your point of view.

There must be something that exists always, something to cause Big-Bang.Before and after Big-Bang it must exist.And it must be the first,it can't be created by something else.If you want to call it "God",then make it.

And NEARLY all proofs in that page are just ... nonsense!

And Theory of Evolution may be incomplete,there are blanks in it.It isn't WRONG.But at least it is the way to truth.One day, there will be a complete theory of Evolution with more strong proofs.

Joacqin has posted what IMO is the best statement.
On the other hand I think Magpie just proved that there is a god.

Now I am going to try and confuse ...ah.. I mean clarify the issue further.

We tend to think in absolutes. To me math is precise. Now before someone makes a comment about 'Modern Math' I have to say that I have taught modern math and written a modern math course. But that's another topic.

Magpie has pointed out (maybe not intentionally) that even this is false.

People who believe in Science tend to take that as an absolute but science is always changing. What is accepted as true today may be found to be false tomorrow.

When it comes to Religion we get even more complicated because each believes theirs to be the absolute.

I am writing this gibberish while not feeling well and with a fever so take for what it is - a fevered fantasy. The whole thing is some sort of Cosmic Joke. I better stop now.

People who believe in Science tend to take that as an absolute but science is always changing. What is accepted as true today may be found to be false tomorrow.

When it comes to Religion we get even more complicated because each believes theirs to be the absolute.It gets even more messy when people start taking things on faith in science or using scientific methods (such as their own logic which they tend to believe to be unfailing, basing on their own interpretation of sacred scriptures) to create religious rules.

At some point in history, someone inferred from the Bible that the Earth was flat and made a religious tenet of it. And there was a good Christian who paid with his life for scientifically proving the opposite. Such things really, really need not happen.

@Nakia


There had to be something to create what we now have.
There are you bringing in the laws of this universe, cause-and-reaction, to a realm before it's creation.

Not that all people see cause-and-reaction as a law of this universe, the ones who don't believe in the meta-physics but do believe in free will are one.

Got me, Morgoth!. I guess I do believe in cause-and-reaction. Hooray! I believe in something.

@MoN,

It was kind of a rhetorical question which I kind-of answered in the next paragraph.
I find it vastly amusing that someone can throw out the big bang theory on the basis that the mass had to come from somewhere, but is willing to believe that an inteligent being can exist without the same requirement.

I don't need an explanation for everything, but it seems to me that religion is just that - the concept of a God being responsible for creation is how folks try and explain stuff to themselves.

Question for TL, If God exists why would he have to be Logical?

[ February 07, 2005, 15:16: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

Oh sorry, Carcaroth, I didn't want to flame or sound rude etc. (I don't know if you thought I was :) )

I find it vastly amusing that someone can throw out the big bang theory on the basis that the mass had to come from somewhere, but is willing to believe that an inteligent being can exist without the same requirement. Agreed, I need to be more specific, but (again) I can't find the right words...
Too often, people try to 'outsmart' my believe with reason. They try to convince me that my believe is bullocks. But their seasoning ends with believe as well, since they can't find the answers to some things. I chose to believe it must be something divine or supernatural, an intelligent person rather than witless stuff.

NM, there's no ending to such conversations.
It's nice I can still disagree with you people. It's just a pitty you disagree with me... :p ;)

Personally, I firmly believe in logic. I have yet to encounter a logically valid theory in favor of the existence of God, or any sort of supreme being. I have also not found a logically valid theory against it. I guess you could say I'm an agnostic.

Sophomore year in high school, my chemistry teacher believed in the big bang theory with far more conviction that almost any Christain I'd met believed in God. A friend of mine argued with him for an entire hour, trying to convince him that there was no evidence of the big bang having happened. The teacher would not accept my friend's arguments to be even remotely valid, yet he offered no evidence supporting the big bang theory. I believe my teacher may have thought somewhat along these lines, however: Evolution is indisputable. If evolution is true, then God cannot exist. Something had to create the universe, therefore the big bang actually happened.

Just goes to show that there are fanatics on either side of every debate. That was a very entertaining hour :p

Logic? Oh no, now you've invited someone to wade in with the "it's not about logic, it's all about faith" angle.

I don't know, HB, as I see a large element of faith in either explanation. For example, what was around before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that was blasted out in the big bang? If the universe is expanding, how is space being created for it to expand into?

Seems to me that both god and the big bang require faith. Maybe they are just two sides of the same coin.

Ah, not the old "two-sided coin" argument! That means there's a 50:50 chance of faith or logic coming up and we're just the product of random chance. Heads - order, Tails - chaos.

The problem is that we are just not designed to think in the probably up to 13 dimensions. Time is the fourth dimension. Think of us as being 2D pictures stacked together over a distance - the distance is our existence. Of course it's not that simple, but the analogy serves. My point (I KNEW I had one somewhere) is that Time, with the other three well known dimensions (Height Width Depth (or whatever you call them)) is nothing but a device for measuring the universe. Time, like the others, came into existence for our universe at it's beginning. Beginning as opposed to creation.